Liberal Forum

Obama and Dems have been spending massively, yet this is the weakest recovery in 80 years, moonbat.On what planet?Obama Channels Eisenhower With Anemic Government Spending GrowthFederal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Expenditures as a share of the economy sank last year to 22.8 percent, their lowest level since 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office data. That’s down from 24.1 percent in 2011 and a 64-year high of 25.2 percent in 2009, when Obama pushed through an $831 billion stimulus package."If you strip out the stimulus, discretionary spending over the last few years has been quite modest and is scheduled to go to levels we haven’t experienced in modern times," Robert Reischauer, a former director of the CBO, said in an interview. "Obama signed on to that," partly in response to Republican pressure.http://www.bloomberg...ing-growth.htmlObama can't spend any money that Congress does not appropriate, and your party has been in control of the House for over two years, and in essence in control of the Senate as well, with their unprecedented use of the filibuster.Yet you absolve them of any and all guilt.

Obama and Dems have been spending massively, yet this is the weakest recovery in 80 years, moonbat. On what planet? Nothing you quoted refuted my claim, moonbat. And your claim about Eisenhower is wrong, too. Obama Recovery Is Worst In Post WWII History By Jeffrey H. Anderson.... The 10 stronger recoveries involved Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush — in other words, every other postwar president.... Indeed, if we limit our comparison to the five longest recessions in the past 65 years (each of which lasted at least 11 months), we find the following: During the four pre-Obama recoveries from such recessions, average real GDP growth in the first three years was a whopping 5.9% — dwarfing the 2.2% figure under Obama. What's the difference between 5.9% and 2.2% growth? Over the past three years, our GDP has been, on average, about $15 trillion annually. A 3.7% shortfall, therefore, equals about $555 billion a year, or $1.6 trillion over three years. If you divide that evenly among the roughly 300 million Americans, it works out to a shortfall of more than $5,000 per person — or more than $20,000 for a family of four. http://news.investor...m#ixzz2OrwHFjri Did Obama's economic policies fail? You'll dodge the question, of course. Obama can't spend any money that Congress does not appropriate, and your party has been in control of the House for over two years, and in essence in control of the Senate as well, with their unprecedented use of the filibuster. Yet you absolve them of any and all guilt. As you full well know, liar, Harry Reid prevents even votes on House bills. So why are House Repubs to blame? They've passed many pro-growth bills, only to have Reid kill them.

Nothing you quoted refuted my claim, moonbat.Actually it did refute your claim that Obama and Dems have been spending massively.And your claim about Eisenhower is wrong, too.MY claim? ROFLSince when is my name Bloomberg.com?You are even more **** crazy then ever.

Obama can't spend any money that Congress does not appropriate, and your party has been in control of the House for over two years, and in essence in control of the Senate as well, with their unprecedented use of the filibuster.As you full well know, liar, Harry Reid prevents even votes on House bills.So why are House Repubs to blame? They've passed many pro-growth bills, only to have Reid kill them.That is non-responsive to what I said.Where are Obama and the Dems supposedly getting all this money that you say they 'have been spending massively' if not from Congress?Are they breaking into the treasury in the middle of the night?United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1)Spending bills must originate in the House, Puss.

And nothing you quoted refuted my claim, moonbat. Actually it did refute your claim that Obama and Dems have been spending massively. This bulls*** again? What, we're supposed to pretend that Obama and Dems went on a massive spending spree just a month after he took office? And have absolutely refused to cut spending, unless coerced by Repubs? Can't you at least tell believable lies? It was in the news for all four years he's been in office, liar. MY claim? ROFL Since when is my name Bloomberg.com? You cited the source because you disagreed with it? More evidence of how psychotic you are. You are even more **** crazy then ever. It takes a full-fledged lunatic to claim Obama and Dems have spent frugally. Get some meds, moonbat. Oh, and of course you dodged my question; Did Obama's economic policies fail?

What, we're supposed to pretend that Obama and Dems went on a massive spending spree just a month after he took office?Yes, let's pretend that.You're not even making sense now.It sounds like you're on his side.That 'pretend' massive spending spree was called a stimulus bill.It was an effort to stimulate the economy left in shambles by the last guy.Who, BTW had a couple of stimulus bills himself, in case you forgot.Were you screaming about those, or did you just pocket the checks and keep quiet?You make it sound as if Obama and 'the Dems' were just spending for the hell of it.And you also make it sound as if they are still spending 'massively', which of course is not true.Obama and Dems have been spending massively.....Present Perfect Progressive TensePresent perfect progressive tense describes an action that began in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future. This tense is formed by using has/have been and the present participle of the verb (the verb form ending in -ing).Example: Obama and Dems have been spending........

What, we're supposed to pretend that Obama and Dems went on a massive spending spree just a month after he took office? Yes, let's pretend that. You're not even making sense now. Oh gosh, I made a grammar mistake. Yes, TARP was a one-time spending bill. Spending would have fallen to historical levels had Obama and Dems not boosted it to 25% of GDP. A record high during relative peacetime. Go ahead, tell your usual Democrat Talking Point Lies. That 'pretend' massive spending spree was called a stimulus bill. It was an effort to stimulate the economy left in shambles by the last guy. Congrats, that is the correct Democrat Talking Point Lie, as usual. You're such a fawning toady for the Democrat Party. Bush share some of the blame, but most falls on liberal policy and liberal Democrats. Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and federal government-coerced mortgages were the primary cause. As even Bawney Fwank admitted. Who, BTW had a couple of stimulus bills himself, in case you forgot. Were you screaming about those, or did you just pocket the checks and keep quiet? You make it sound as if Obama and 'the Dems' were just spending for the hell of it. And you also make it sound as if they are still spending 'massively', which of course is not true. Present Perfect Progressive Tense Okay, you got me there. I have the tense wrong. They massively boosted spending to 25% of GDP just a month or so after he took office, and have worked as hard as they can to protect every penny. However, if Democrats still controlled Congress, they still would be raising spending. They are unable, simply because voters tossed them out in 2010. Now be a good toady and tell more lies.

Real taxes go toward supporting the cost of government. Payroll taxes go into a programfrom which you will get your money back at your retirement. Funny. Wasn't it just a few years ago when you and your ilk at the WSJ were crying about how people get far more from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid compared to what they paid into it? Clearly the money's coming from elsewhere. I don't know if you've picked up on this but SS, Medicaid, and Medicare are OBLIGATIONS of the federal government. (The last 2 are administered through the states) Until it decides to abolish those programs, that is a "cost of government." Maybe even you could figure that out. I had a huge problem with the Democrat-caused S&L crisis, and I never supported Clinton bailing out LTCM, which caused literal depressions in a number of countries. The "Democrat-caused" S&L crisis? Actually, both Democrats and Republicans supported deregulation of the S&L's in the 1980s, including your god Reagan, and when it was apparent they were going to be insolvent, Bush organized the RTC to purchase all the toxic assets. Bailing out LTCM was not just Clinton's decision - it was also made by Greenspan and the Republican House (all of whom went along with it). Clearly when your rich butt buddies are in trouble after performing anal or getting sodomized by a big c0ck while their ASSets drop like a house of cards, you have no problem going along with the bailout. Same with the 2008 bailout (which you conveniently ignored). (holy fukk i just used enough innuendo that would make cannonpointer seem like a prude by comparison) I would also argue that the economic policies which you support, such as tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY (sprinkled with insignificant cuts to lower brackets to propagate the illusion that you're cutting "everyone's" taxes - let's not pretend otherwise), deregulation, liberalization of trade, cuts to social services, and IMF/WTO organized "restructuring" programs to force other countries into adopting the same paradigm, have contributed to the problem massively.

Clem got body-slammed in another thread with Krugman's predictions coming true, regarding Iceland's "paraiah" status in the international community.As usual, clembot 3000 was wrong and paul krugman was right. Iceland's credit and international standing are rebuilding far ahead of mainstream predictions, whereas their debt to gdp picture is quite good, relative to those countries which went along with the gunpoint "bailouts.".

I thought of you,,,,So did this one,,,,

A ballsac!

I had a huge problem with the Democrat-caused S&L crisis, and I never supported Clinton bailing out LTCM, which caused literal depressions in a number of countries. The "Democrat-caused" S&L crisis? Actually, both Democrats and Republicans supported deregulation of the S&L's in the 1980s, including your god Reagan, and when it was apparent they were going to be insolvent, Bush organized the RTC to purchase all the toxic assets. Yes, the Democrat-caused S&L crisis, which wasn't caused by deregulation, but by regulation and Carter's inflation. Try not to be so stupid and ignorant. Oh, sorry, that's your nature. Bailing out LTCM was not just Clinton's decision - it was also made by Greenspan and the Republican House (all of whom went along with it). Clearly when your rich butt buddies are in trouble after performing anal or getting sodomized by a big c0ck while their ASSets drop like a house of cards, you have no problem going along with the bailout. In fact, the House refused to approve what Clinton did, so he arguably illegally used a fund meant to stabilize the dollar, with which he funded the IMF, to apply its poisonous policies. Greenspan essentially worked for Clinton and had little autonomy on his own, particularly in regard to a foreign matter, moonbat. Same with the 2008 bailout (which you conveniently ignored). Again, it was Democrats who were most enthusiastic about TARP, other than Bush, who was getting horrific advice by that time. Repubs were reluctant to support it, if not opposed. Try to get your basic facts right at least once in a while.

I thought of you,,,,ROFLMFAOActually Clem already has a Facebook page.....A ballsac! I smell a new avatar. LOL

Again, it was Democrats who were most enthusiastic about TARP, other than Bush, who was getting horrific advice by that time.Ohhhhhh.......Poor little W. It wasn't his fault. He was just getting bad advice.It's not like he was the **** president or anything.Who's the partisan hack now Puss?

There have been many threads about guns on this forum lately, but this is one aspect of the subject I haven't seen discussed.Gun Violence Costs U.S. Health Care System, Taxpayers Billions Each Year......In the American conversation, discussion of gun-related violence generally centers on the tragic loss of life or permanent injuries that result. But beneath these headline-grabbing, life-shattering facts are costs measured in vast numbers of dollars.Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate. The cost of those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year, according to the CDC.

There have been many threads about guns on this forum lately, but this is one aspect of the subject I haven't seen discussed. yeah well, car crashes cost the american taxpayer $164 billion. that's 5 times the amount of guns. ban cars. http://money.cnn.com...nomy/AAA_study/

ROFLMFAOActually Clem already has a Facebook page.....Speaking of lunatics.....According to Ryan, rape is just another method of conception.Could a sane, honest person believe that?Again, it was Democrats who were most enthusiastic about TARP, other than Bush, who was getting horrific advice by that time.Ohhhhhh.......Poor little W. It wasn't his fault. He was just getting bad advice.It's not like he was the **** president or anything.Who's the partisan hack now Puss?I have written repeatedly for years that the Financial Freeze was partly Bush's fault; specifically his lax Fed policy.He chose those advisers, and he followed what they recommended, so that's his fault.In total contrast, you have lied for years now that Democrats and Obama deserve absolutely no blame.So as usual, you are the dishonest, partisan political hack.

TARP was a one-time spending bill. Spending would have fallen to historical levels had Obama and Dems not boosted it to 25% of GDP.A record high during relative peacetime.Go ahead, tell your usual Democrat Talking Point Lies. ...(Obama and Dems) massively boosted spending to 25% of GDP just a month or so after he took office, and have worked as hard as they can to protect every penny.However, if Democrats still controlled Congress, they still would be raising spending.Oh gosh,faced with facts, little Miss Marxist does her disappearing act. ROFLMFAOActually Clem already has a Facebook page.....Speaking of lunatics....For 50 years, the Russians tried to destroy this nation.Now, within a couple of years, the Tea Party is succeeding.Could a sane, honest person believe that?

yeah well, car crashes cost the american taxpayer $164 billion. that's 5 times the amount of guns. ban cars. http://money.cnn.com...nomy/AAA_study/ Okay, then you candrive your gun to work. Speaking of lunatics.....

Oh gosh,faced with facts, little Miss Marxist does her disappearing act. You're so silly My Clemmy. You know I'm in the basement. Did you remember to pick up my SS costume from the taylor? Was he able to repair it after you ripped it off of me the last time I wore it? I know how much it arouses you My Clemmy, but you have to try and control yourself.